We got a tip that something cool is about to hit. I keep saying that the “no electronic devices on airplanes” thing is crap, and American Airlines, it seems, is seeing my point of view. Starting next year, transcontinental 767-200s will be equipped with Wi-Fi and broadband access via Aircell, who has a similar deal in place with Virgin Airlines. The technology has been around for awhile, and I must say “It’s about damned time.”
It’s a pilot program for now (heh), but if successful, it could ripple through to all of American’s planes. What’s great is AA is offering the service for free. In a world where airlines must charge for a second package of pretzels, they’re giving you Wi-Fi for free 10 bucks a pop. Thank heavens, and thanks American.
More as we hear.
Not sure what the big ‘TIP’ is here because all of your info is contained in an AA press release I read from back on August 1st of 2007. AA will start testing wifi in 2008 on transcontinental routes first. Here’s the link.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/airplane_01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/wireless/american-airlines-to-test-in%2Bflight-wi%2Bfi-in-2008-284929.php&h=252&w=400&sz=29&hl=en&start=11&sig2=tuYoWUpOR6-URV5KSyOdfQ&um=1&tbnid=lNxSUfzQEToqZM:&tbnh=78&tbnw=124&eid=vapYR-znMpDmgAKUqMnsCQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dairplane%2Bwifi%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3DLEn%26sa%3DN
If I’m wrong on this. I stand corrected. Peace!
The wifi to be offered on 767-200 aircraft will not be free. There will be a charge for all passengers, in all classes. If successful, it could be rolled out to AA’s other domestic aircraft, including the 757, 737 and MD-80. It may appear on the 767-300s, but those along with 777s are used primarily to international destinations and the wifi won’t work. The A300s are leaving the fleet in the next four years, and they predominantly fly the Caribbean so they won’t get it either.
AA will begin offering free wifi in its Admiral Clubs. That was just announced yesterday or the day before. Admiral’s Clubs are for members only, or, you can purchase a day pass for $50.
Matt,
Seth and Kevin provided you with some good follow up. In addition I would add that you seem to be mixing your apples and oranges.
While you characterize the limits placed on onboard use of portable electronic devices as “crap,” those restrictions are simply there for your safety. You will note it is a total prohibition below 10,000 feet, and limited prohibition above. Why the distinction? Because below 10,000 the cockpit crew are more likely to be navigating your aircraft within three miles of another aircraft, rather than the five to ten miles used at higher altitudes, as well as being closer to that immovable object – Earth.
To keep it succinct, while you call the restriction “crap” I have personally witnessed cockpit navigation instruments being affected by equipment being operated by passengers. This has happened to me personally on more than one occasion and it was unequivocal. Each time when the passenger was found and told to turn the device off the issue in the cockpit cleared right up. In each of my experiences the thing that manifested the problem was the course devision indicator (CDI) which is the primary indicator of the final path to the runway – quite literally used all the way to touchdown in low visibility conditions. Having even the slightest chance of that indicator being adversely affected by a device in the cabin in order to cater to the desire of an individual makes no sense to me, and your characterization really minimizes all of the consideration and analysis done on the subject.
To those of us truly knowledgable on the subject matter, rather than being “crap” this is a genuine safety issue. So, my advice to you would be that you would do well to blog with an issue with a fact based opinion, rather than weighing in on a highly technical matter with nothing more than emotion driven and highly pejorative remark.
Regards,
Phil
Wow! The inside tip was all whack! I’ll not count on free WiFi on AA anytime soon then.
Much better idea than mobiles on plane – fewer homicides ;)
I agree that, while some of this buzz seems to be new, much of the details were released as far back as April. I’ve put together a summary of the new vs. old here:
http://www.techconsumer.com/2007/12/07/wifi-in-the-sky-in-flight-internet-almost-here/
i think that is kool using a lab top on a air plane. plus if i’m on a air plane i can play my SIMS
@Phillip,
In a world where bottled water and toothpaste constitute an unacceptable danger for aviation, I find it difficult to believe that if electronic items did affect airlines in this way that they would be allowed. I mean, it seems that even my shoes are more of a threat to airline safety than my iPod (which after a long hard day might actually be true…)
If it were in fact that simple (and that dangerous), why has this vast gaping hole in security not been ruthlessly exploited by ‘the bad guys’ ?
Sounds wonderful, but … American has the seat rows so close together now back in coach, especially on MD-80s, and flights are so full that even using a small laptop (Macbook), there is no way you are going to be able to make use of wi-fi. Let alone when the person in the row in front of you reclines his or her seat. I’ve given up being able to do any work on a laptop during any flight. I use paper and pencil, a PDA, or a digipen and an Anoto notebook. And even those are a challenge — along with the jammed-up seating, American has reduced the size of the seatback trays (if they aren’t even providing a sandwich any more, they figure you don’t need the tray for anything more than a softdrink can).
I was just on AA, and the seating in coach was pretty average. You either exaggerate a lot of are a large burly man. I had enough leg room, and my tray was fine… but wait, you especially cited MD-80’s… and if you read the blurb you would see this is for Boeings.. so your MD complaints arent too relevant.
And if cabin electronics could even remotely hinder the equipment in the cockpit for flight and navigation and landing then they would be banned from he cabin. Do you really think every single person in the cabin actually turns their phone off? no, they dont. and a lot dont even put it into silent mode. I dont have the reference, ‘ll try to find it, but it was a pilot giving an interview to I think GQ and Esquire, and he basically said that they tell people to turn off electronics when taking off/landing so they will listen to safety instructions.
um, the MD-80 is now a Boeing product, after MD was bought by Boeing…it was rebranded the 717 when they (Boeing) made it, and is now serviced by Boeing.
“anu
December 7th, 2007 at 11:37 am
@Phillip,
In a world where bottled water and toothpaste constitute an unacceptable danger for aviation, I find it difficult to believe that if electronic items did affect airlines in this way that they would be allowed. I mean, it seems that even my shoes are more of a threat to airline safety than my iPod (which after a long hard day might actually be true…)
If it were in fact that simple (and that dangerous), why has this vast gaping hole in security not been ruthlessly exploited by ‘the bad guys’ ?”
Anu,
If I really must explain it to you it is not “bottled water and toothpaste” that “constitute an unacceptable danger for aviation,” it is that sophisticated explosives can masquerade as those common items. This is well documented and should have been addressed well before it was. It is not just our military special forces types that know how to construct such items and use them to great effect. Many laypeople know how to as well. The fact that aviation security waited so long to address this point is amply illustrated by your questioning of that issue, along with your questioning of the prohibition on use of electronic devices. Restrictions of those types are always met with howls of discontent by the “its all about me” crowd, and so only when there is overwhelming evidence of their necessity is such a rule put into place.
You will note that I did not specify what caused the problems I described. Further, we have other back up systems on board modern airliners to warn of deviations of this type, and when there is conflicting information we start a process of eliminating the erroneous information. As illustrated previously the danger is somewhat amplified at lower altitudes hence the greater prohibition. Additionally, steps have been taken to reduce these types of threat issues.
I am not going to elaborate beyond those points. But, I will tell you that I am a captain for a major airline and I also have a background in law enforcement. The rules exists for well thought out reasons, legitimate reasons, and not just to inconvenience persons that think they know everything. Sorry if that does not fit your simplistic analysis, but it is all factual and the reason I ran the flag up on the whole “crap” piece that the blogger started up with. As for the timing of the PR, the timing of the actual roll out, whether it will be “free” or not (Is anything really free?); I did not directly address those points. I only addressed the minor rant about not being able to use whatever electronic device someone might wish.
In closing, if you think your position is worth risking passenger lives I submit your position is in the substantial minority.
Regards,
Phillip Beall
” American has the seat rows so close together now back in coach, especially on MD-80s, and flights are so full that even using a small laptop (Macbook),”
iPod Touch– full featured browser.
Phil, regarding airplane electronics and the interference caused by other electronics, I would like more information, if you can provide it:
All personal electronics devices sold in the US, like laptops, cell phones, and so on must be certified by the FCC to generate radio signals only within their proscribed bands and, within those bands, to conform to certain regulations depending on the frequency, including quite strict regulations on out-of-band transmissions. Other countries have similar restrictions from their own respective government bodies.
Given that the bands in use by consumer electronic devices are restricted and very well known (either licensed bands or generally available ISM bands like 2.4GHz, 900-928MHz, 433Mhz in the US), I assume that all critical airplane communication channels are built to use different (licensed) frequencies.
So it comes down to sensitive measuring equipment that can be affected by narrow band interference at a frequency used by a consumer electronic device, correct? What sorts of devices would be affected by this? Radar should be broadband anyway and quite interference resistant, so I’m not sure what other devices an airplane employs that could be affected.
Is it then only malfunctioning devices that cause a problem for airplane electronics? Properly functioning devices or devices like a DVD player which have no RF emission components should never pose a problem in this case, correct?
I appreciate that you are trying to lend some technical credibility to this discussion, but I would like to understand more about the mechanisms, because my own background (EE + years in the wireless industry) does not explain to me why airplane instrumentation should be affected by a cellular phone operating properly on a known, licensed frequency. Your claim that “these decisions are made for good reasons” I accept, but I would like to know more about what are those good reasons.
Cheers,
-Paul
Paul,
Sorry to take so long to reply. I wasn’t set to subscribe to replies and only now saw your post.
Your questions are valid and I agree with your basic premise. The problems have been not so much in cellular telephones but in other items such as toys, electronic games, and as I understand it some devices that have GPS built into them. It is not frequency bleed, frequency collisions, etc., but that aircraft radio equipment of every type, ranging from radio altimeters to sat phones to VOR navigation equipment, to name a few; they all have “heads” in one place, antennas in others (protruding off the aircraft), main equipment located in avionics bays, etc. The cabling from one place to another is prone to EMI from any electrical source. Some are more sensitive than others. The military had a problem with Blackhawk helicopters flying near high-tension power lines. These choppers are “fly by wire” and they found EMI from those power lines just blanked out the control signals – and I know of at least two that were total losses of both the aircraft and the persons on board. The military hadn’t seen the need to spend what would have been a LOT of money to “harden” the wiring from EMI, and some people paid dearly for that decision.
The sheer number of devices, the short life cycles of these devices, and all of these other vagaries are the reason the FCC and other regulatory agencies have never done any testing on equipment to see what is, and what is not, safe to use on a plane. If you just ignore the toys and other doodads and simply talk about cell phones – what is the life cycle on cell phone models? I’m guessing a year. There are so many permutations of cell phones, and aircraft (with their varying design and construction methods), and aircraft avionic equipment – it is simply too daunting a task, both technologically and financially, and so it has been punted with the universal rules.
I know this answer won’t satisfy some, but that is the hard reality of things. If anyone just hates the answer I suggest they start up a business that does all of that testing. If they can do that and get FCC and FAA on board, they would have the potential for a big payoff by selling “safe certification” to manufacturers of everything imaginable. Nobody will of course, it is free and easy to just complain, but if this could be done it would be a real bonanza for someone. But, the fact of the matter is that if it could have been done it would have been done long ago. The cat is out of the bag now, but if such testing and certification standards had been in place all along it would not be so daunting. As it is, while not impossible, it is (in my view) totally impractical.
Regards,
Phil